评价亲电和亲核试剂的理解:学习者对反应机制解释的大规模研究

IF 3.2 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Stephanie J. H. Frost, Brandon J. Yik, Amber J. Dood, Daniel Cruz-Ramírez de Arellano, Kimberly B. Fields and Jeffrey R. Raker
{"title":"评价亲电和亲核试剂的理解:学习者对反应机制解释的大规模研究","authors":"Stephanie J. H. Frost, Brandon J. Yik, Amber J. Dood, Daniel Cruz-Ramírez de Arellano, Kimberly B. Fields and Jeffrey R. Raker","doi":"10.1039/D2RP00327A","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p >A deep understanding of organic chemistry requires a learner to understand many concepts and have fluency with multiple skills. This understanding is particularly necessary for constructing and using mechanisms to explain chemical reactions. Electrophilicity and nucleophilicity are two fundamental concepts to learning and understanding reaction mechanisms. Prior research suggests that learners focus heavily on explicit structural features (<em>e.g.</em>, formal charge) rather than implicit features (<em>e.g.</em>, an open p-orbital) when identifying and describing the role of electrophiles and nucleophiles in reaction mechanisms; however, these findings come from small-scale, interview-based investigations with a limited number of reaction mechanisms. The work reported herein seeks to further explore the meaning learners ascribe to electrophiles and nucleophiles by evaluating 19?936 written explanations from constructed-response items asking <em>what</em> is happening in reaction mechanisms and <em>why</em> it happens for 85 unique reaction mechanisms across a yearlong postsecondary organic chemistry course. To analyze these data, we developed an electrophile rubric to capture learners’ level of explanation sophistication (<em>Absent, Descriptive, Foundational</em>, and <em>Complex</em>); this electrophile rubric is complementary to a nucleophile rubric previously reported in the literature. Our data show proportional levels of explanation sophistication for electrophiles and nucleophiles (<em>τ</em><small><sub>b</sub></small> = 0.402) across these written explanations of reaction mechanisms. We note that learners’ explanations of nucleophiles tend to be at a higher level than their explanations of electrophiles. While this finding does support prior literature reports, we also found that explanations of mechanisms involving reductions of pi-bonds (<em>e.g.</em>, carbonyls) tended to be more sophisticated for electrophiles than for nucleophiles. Overall, our results support the claim that learners are able to discuss both electrophilicity and nucleophilicity; however, learners discuss electrophilicity and nucleophilicity at different levels of sophistication where nucleophilicity predominates for most reaction types.</p>","PeriodicalId":69,"journal":{"name":"Chemistry Education Research and Practice","volume":" 2","pages":" 706-722"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating electrophile and nucleophile understanding: a large-scale study of learners’ explanations of reaction mechanisms\",\"authors\":\"Stephanie J. H. Frost, Brandon J. Yik, Amber J. Dood, Daniel Cruz-Ramírez de Arellano, Kimberly B. Fields and Jeffrey R. Raker\",\"doi\":\"10.1039/D2RP00327A\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p >A deep understanding of organic chemistry requires a learner to understand many concepts and have fluency with multiple skills. This understanding is particularly necessary for constructing and using mechanisms to explain chemical reactions. Electrophilicity and nucleophilicity are two fundamental concepts to learning and understanding reaction mechanisms. Prior research suggests that learners focus heavily on explicit structural features (<em>e.g.</em>, formal charge) rather than implicit features (<em>e.g.</em>, an open p-orbital) when identifying and describing the role of electrophiles and nucleophiles in reaction mechanisms; however, these findings come from small-scale, interview-based investigations with a limited number of reaction mechanisms. The work reported herein seeks to further explore the meaning learners ascribe to electrophiles and nucleophiles by evaluating 19?936 written explanations from constructed-response items asking <em>what</em> is happening in reaction mechanisms and <em>why</em> it happens for 85 unique reaction mechanisms across a yearlong postsecondary organic chemistry course. To analyze these data, we developed an electrophile rubric to capture learners’ level of explanation sophistication (<em>Absent, Descriptive, Foundational</em>, and <em>Complex</em>); this electrophile rubric is complementary to a nucleophile rubric previously reported in the literature. Our data show proportional levels of explanation sophistication for electrophiles and nucleophiles (<em>τ</em><small><sub>b</sub></small> = 0.402) across these written explanations of reaction mechanisms. We note that learners’ explanations of nucleophiles tend to be at a higher level than their explanations of electrophiles. While this finding does support prior literature reports, we also found that explanations of mechanisms involving reductions of pi-bonds (<em>e.g.</em>, carbonyls) tended to be more sophisticated for electrophiles than for nucleophiles. Overall, our results support the claim that learners are able to discuss both electrophilicity and nucleophilicity; however, learners discuss electrophilicity and nucleophilicity at different levels of sophistication where nucleophilicity predominates for most reaction types.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":69,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chemistry Education Research and Practice\",\"volume\":\" 2\",\"pages\":\" 706-722\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chemistry Education Research and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2023/rp/d2rp00327a\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chemistry Education Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2023/rp/d2rp00327a","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

对有机化学的深刻理解需要学习者理解许多概念,并熟练掌握多种技能。这种理解对于构建和使用机制来解释化学反应是特别必要的。亲电性和亲核性是学习和理解反应机理的两个基本概念。先前的研究表明,学习者在识别和描述亲电和亲核试剂在反应机制中的作用时,主要关注显性结构特征(如形式电荷)而不是隐性特征(如开放的p轨道);然而,这些发现来自小规模的、基于访谈的调查,反应机制的数量有限。本文报告的工作旨在通过评估19?在为期一年的中学后有机化学课程中,对85种独特的反应机制提出了936个关于反应机制中发生了什么以及为什么会发生反应的书面解释。为了分析这些数据,我们开发了一个亲电指标来捕捉学习者的解释复杂程度(缺席、描述、基础和复杂);这种亲电试剂与先前文献中报道的亲核试剂互补。我们的数据显示,在这些反应机理的书面解释中,亲电试剂和亲核试剂的解释复杂程度成比例(τb = 0.402)。我们注意到,学习者对亲核试剂的解释往往比他们对亲电试剂的解释更高。虽然这一发现确实支持了先前的文献报道,但我们还发现,对于亲电试剂而言,对pi键(例如羰基)还原的机制的解释往往比亲核试剂更为复杂。总的来说,我们的结果支持学习者能够讨论亲电性和亲核性的说法;然而,学习者在不同的复杂程度上讨论亲电性和亲核性,其中亲核性在大多数反应类型中占主导地位。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating electrophile and nucleophile understanding: a large-scale study of learners’ explanations of reaction mechanisms

A deep understanding of organic chemistry requires a learner to understand many concepts and have fluency with multiple skills. This understanding is particularly necessary for constructing and using mechanisms to explain chemical reactions. Electrophilicity and nucleophilicity are two fundamental concepts to learning and understanding reaction mechanisms. Prior research suggests that learners focus heavily on explicit structural features (e.g., formal charge) rather than implicit features (e.g., an open p-orbital) when identifying and describing the role of electrophiles and nucleophiles in reaction mechanisms; however, these findings come from small-scale, interview-based investigations with a limited number of reaction mechanisms. The work reported herein seeks to further explore the meaning learners ascribe to electrophiles and nucleophiles by evaluating 19?936 written explanations from constructed-response items asking what is happening in reaction mechanisms and why it happens for 85 unique reaction mechanisms across a yearlong postsecondary organic chemistry course. To analyze these data, we developed an electrophile rubric to capture learners’ level of explanation sophistication (Absent, Descriptive, Foundational, and Complex); this electrophile rubric is complementary to a nucleophile rubric previously reported in the literature. Our data show proportional levels of explanation sophistication for electrophiles and nucleophiles (τb = 0.402) across these written explanations of reaction mechanisms. We note that learners’ explanations of nucleophiles tend to be at a higher level than their explanations of electrophiles. While this finding does support prior literature reports, we also found that explanations of mechanisms involving reductions of pi-bonds (e.g., carbonyls) tended to be more sophisticated for electrophiles than for nucleophiles. Overall, our results support the claim that learners are able to discuss both electrophilicity and nucleophilicity; however, learners discuss electrophilicity and nucleophilicity at different levels of sophistication where nucleophilicity predominates for most reaction types.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
26.70%
发文量
64
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal for teachers, researchers and other practitioners in chemistry education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信